To The Rescue Of Flood-Prone Homes?

Under a law passed in 2012, rates for flood insurance, available only through the federal government, would have jumped substantially, in some cases starting right away.

Many of those who own homes in flood-prone areas of the state, particularly the shoreline, saw their premiums either potentially or actually skyrocket and protested strongly to members of Connecticut's congressional delegation. Their complaints made a difference.

Last month, with help from other coastal states, both the House and Senate passed, and President Obama signed, another law. It substantially weakens the 2012 measure, which is known as the Biggert-Waters Act.

Was last month's vote a sign of common sense and fiscal compassion? Hardly.

Although it promises to bring a measure of relief to those who feared much higher insurance premiums, it does nothing to address realities that the original law recognized: Sea levels are rising. Damaging storms are becoming more common. Flooding is likely to be more widespread.

The National Flood Insurance Program, created in 1968, has been bankrupt for years, and is $24 billion in debt. Biggert-Waters would have put it on more solid financial ground by telling homeowners, "You want to live in a flood-prone area? Fine. But you pay for the expensive insurance — not the taxpayers."

Last month's reversal of Biggert-Waters doesn't let homeowners of the hook entirely. It caps annual flood insurance raises at 18 percent. That's not cheap, but neither is rebuilding after a flood. Taxpayer subsidies will still allow those in flood-prone areas to pay below-market insurance rates.

When federal flood insurance was established 46 years ago, part of the deal was that local communities would work to restrict development in low-lying areas. That requirement, when it was not ignored altogether, has been spottily enforced.

After the devastating storms Irene in 2011 and Sandy in 2012, it should have been obvious that there has to be less, not more, home construction on the state's shoreline and in other flood-prone places. These areas should be used for conservation, recreation, wetland preservation and saving marine habitats — as a 2013 report from the state's Shoreline Preservation Task Force made clear.